What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Trump
This New York Times bestselling Trump biography from a major American intellectual explains how a renegade businessman became one of the most successful -- and necessary -- presidents of all time.
In The Case for Trump, award-winning historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson explains how a celebrity businessman with no political or military experience triumphed over sixteen well-qualified Republican rivals, a Democrat with a quarter-billion-dollar war chest, and a hostile media and Washington establishment to become president of the United States -- and an extremely successful president.
Trump alone saw a political opportunity in defending the working people of America's interior whom the coastal elite of both parties had come to scorn, Hanson argues. And Trump alone had the instincts and energy to pursue this opening to victory, dismantle a corrupt old order, and bring long-overdue policy changes at home and abroad. We could not survive a series of presidencies as volatile as Trump's. But after decades of drift, America needs the outsider Trump to do what normal politicians would not and could not do.
In The Case for Trump, award-winning historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson explains how a celebrity businessman with no political or military experience triumphed over sixteen well-qualified Republican rivals, a Democrat with a quarter-billion-dollar war chest, and a hostile media and Washington establishment to become president of the United States -- and an extremely successful president.
Trump alone saw a political opportunity in defending the working people of America's interior whom the coastal elite of both parties had come to scorn, Hanson argues. And Trump alone had the instincts and energy to pursue this opening to victory, dismantle a corrupt old order, and bring long-overdue policy changes at home and abroad. We could not survive a series of presidencies as volatile as Trump's. But after decades of drift, America needs the outsider Trump to do what normal politicians would not and could not do.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published March 5, 2019
About the author
Victor Davis Hanson
67 books930 followersHanson was educated at the University of California, Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. He lives and works with his family on their forty-acre tree and vine farm near Selma, California, where he was born in 1953.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews
March 3, 2020
Hanson is an intelligent writer. Incredible as it may sound, he really does make a solid case for Trump in this book. He should be read, because most of the time we hear only the obvious, easy-to-reject pro-Trump arguments. How do we deal with intelligently constructed, solid arguments? That will be the test of how the opposition to Trump will shape up.
I am rating this book high because I expected vitriol and half-baked justifications, but I got a thoughtful thesis. I don't know how much of these arguments are "fake news", but Hanson makes a case for Trump, without ever trying to show him as something he is not. He admits he is a fool and a showman, playing to the worst fears of Americans, but he also shows how that is helping the nation in perverse ways.
The only place Hanson goes off the rails is when he tried to portray Trump as a tragic hero, along the lines of an Achilles or an Ajax. Hanson views the President as akin to a classically tragic hero, whom America needs but will never fully appreciate - yes, Trump is Batman. He will protect the Americans from the immigrants. That is a Trump level fantasy, innit? Now, that gave me the pleasure I expected when I picked up this book - of looking down upon the author in pity. See? This book has made me more honest than I normally would have been.
That is why you should read this. It makes a case for Trump, or at least it tries, even for this guy.
I am rating this book high because I expected vitriol and half-baked justifications, but I got a thoughtful thesis. I don't know how much of these arguments are "fake news", but Hanson makes a case for Trump, without ever trying to show him as something he is not. He admits he is a fool and a showman, playing to the worst fears of Americans, but he also shows how that is helping the nation in perverse ways.
The only place Hanson goes off the rails is when he tried to portray Trump as a tragic hero, along the lines of an Achilles or an Ajax. Hanson views the President as akin to a classically tragic hero, whom America needs but will never fully appreciate - yes, Trump is Batman. He will protect the Americans from the immigrants. That is a Trump level fantasy, innit? Now, that gave me the pleasure I expected when I picked up this book - of looking down upon the author in pity. See? This book has made me more honest than I normally would have been.
That is why you should read this. It makes a case for Trump, or at least it tries, even for this guy.
April 27, 2019
This was another of those books that I found painful to read, but I was glad I forced myself to do it. On top of that, I hope to add this book to my private collection to be used as a source of future reference. Part of my early frustration while reading this was due to the chapters on politics that dealt with which states were blue or red and why. I for one don't care about that. I am voting for whomever I want, just like I rooted for my favorite team.
As stated on the cover, this book is a must-read for anyone who supports President Trump for it tells you what's what, and that is something you will not find on the likes of CNN. There are several chapters that list all the hate and lies that newscasters, movie stars, politicians, and business folks have dumped not only on the President but Americans just doing their jobs. Some were so vile and hateful you wonder why the hell the secret service never paid them a visit, or they were at least arrested for assault or a hate crime? One can only imagine what would have happened had somebody said any of those things about Obama. The funny thing is, and what the book points out, many who are so eager to cast the first stone end up being embarrassed by their own sins. They call Trump names for locker room talk, which they all do, or something he did twenty years ago before he became president, and then you find out the guy who is so mad about this is sexually abusing aspiring starlets. The President's tweets are mentioned, almost apologetically, but I for one would rather hear what he really thinks than listen to some guy reading the teleprompter while lying about his true intentions and beliefs.
Mentioned also is how businesses and government agencies were weaponized to attack the people they are suppose to serve. The IRS went after select individuals because of their politics or believes. Disagree with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Google and you will be 'filtered' out.
It seems that the freedom of the press has been weaponized to turn on American people too. Two thirds of majority newscasts were overseen by siblings of close advisors to Obama. The ratio of negative to positive news about Trump was something like 13 to 1. Repeat lies often enough and people start to believe it. They say that the pen is mightier than the sword. CNN is often for gun control, but it appears the likes of CNN are a far more dangerous weapon. Maybe CNN writers and editors should be made to apply for gun cards and there should be a 5 day waiting period before running a story so they can cool off, or at least determine if what they are saying is true or not!
While reading this book, one can not help but understand what Trump refers to as the deep state. Like a crooked union that protects thieving workers, Pickering, a close personal friend of Hillary, was appointed chairman of the Benghazi Review Board, while Obama blamed a video maker for the fiasco. To the consternation of the families of those fallen heroes, Hillary's blame was quickly swept under the carpet while Mueller drags on the nonsense of the Trump/Russians tampering with the election.
Hillary's sins are covered pretty good in this book, though the body count surprisingly is not mentioned. You have to look elsewhere for that. I guess it is pretty hard to indict her if witnesses keep getting killed off. She is a criminal and enough people must believe it if "Lock her up!" became an unofficial campaign slogan.
Obama's sins are covered too, but he was not as bad as Hillary. There is a saying that Republicans get elected because they are rich, while Democrats get elected to get rich. What is a president's salary and how much is Obama worth now? Didn't he say something to the effect that at some point you made enough money? Was that before or after he and the Mrs. signed those book deals?
Speaking of money, Hillary and Bill made quite a bit on speaking fees. Did you ever wonder what brilliance they talk about? Was Bill talking about his extra-marital affairs when the Russians paid him some $500,000, or was that payback for the uranium deal? Hillary was getting $250,000 for speaking, yet only $25,000 after she lost the election. I guess there was no point in paying her outlandish fees if she would not be able to return the favor.
My intention should be to comment on the contents of book and the writer's ability to present it. In this case I may have gotten carried away a bit, but I think it is time America wakes up to the fact that evil and corrupt politicians are our biggest threat, bigger even then 'the rocket man' or terrorists with a dirty bomb. Remember, Hitler was 'legally' elected and we know how that turned out.
As stated on the cover, this book is a must-read for anyone who supports President Trump for it tells you what's what, and that is something you will not find on the likes of CNN. There are several chapters that list all the hate and lies that newscasters, movie stars, politicians, and business folks have dumped not only on the President but Americans just doing their jobs. Some were so vile and hateful you wonder why the hell the secret service never paid them a visit, or they were at least arrested for assault or a hate crime? One can only imagine what would have happened had somebody said any of those things about Obama. The funny thing is, and what the book points out, many who are so eager to cast the first stone end up being embarrassed by their own sins. They call Trump names for locker room talk, which they all do, or something he did twenty years ago before he became president, and then you find out the guy who is so mad about this is sexually abusing aspiring starlets. The President's tweets are mentioned, almost apologetically, but I for one would rather hear what he really thinks than listen to some guy reading the teleprompter while lying about his true intentions and beliefs.
Mentioned also is how businesses and government agencies were weaponized to attack the people they are suppose to serve. The IRS went after select individuals because of their politics or believes. Disagree with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Google and you will be 'filtered' out.
It seems that the freedom of the press has been weaponized to turn on American people too. Two thirds of majority newscasts were overseen by siblings of close advisors to Obama. The ratio of negative to positive news about Trump was something like 13 to 1. Repeat lies often enough and people start to believe it. They say that the pen is mightier than the sword. CNN is often for gun control, but it appears the likes of CNN are a far more dangerous weapon. Maybe CNN writers and editors should be made to apply for gun cards and there should be a 5 day waiting period before running a story so they can cool off, or at least determine if what they are saying is true or not!
While reading this book, one can not help but understand what Trump refers to as the deep state. Like a crooked union that protects thieving workers, Pickering, a close personal friend of Hillary, was appointed chairman of the Benghazi Review Board, while Obama blamed a video maker for the fiasco. To the consternation of the families of those fallen heroes, Hillary's blame was quickly swept under the carpet while Mueller drags on the nonsense of the Trump/Russians tampering with the election.
Hillary's sins are covered pretty good in this book, though the body count surprisingly is not mentioned. You have to look elsewhere for that. I guess it is pretty hard to indict her if witnesses keep getting killed off. She is a criminal and enough people must believe it if "Lock her up!" became an unofficial campaign slogan.
Obama's sins are covered too, but he was not as bad as Hillary. There is a saying that Republicans get elected because they are rich, while Democrats get elected to get rich. What is a president's salary and how much is Obama worth now? Didn't he say something to the effect that at some point you made enough money? Was that before or after he and the Mrs. signed those book deals?
Speaking of money, Hillary and Bill made quite a bit on speaking fees. Did you ever wonder what brilliance they talk about? Was Bill talking about his extra-marital affairs when the Russians paid him some $500,000, or was that payback for the uranium deal? Hillary was getting $250,000 for speaking, yet only $25,000 after she lost the election. I guess there was no point in paying her outlandish fees if she would not be able to return the favor.
My intention should be to comment on the contents of book and the writer's ability to present it. In this case I may have gotten carried away a bit, but I think it is time America wakes up to the fact that evil and corrupt politicians are our biggest threat, bigger even then 'the rocket man' or terrorists with a dirty bomb. Remember, Hitler was 'legally' elected and we know how that turned out.
March 21, 2019
Hanson is brilliant. And he's got the entire scenario with 1000 inputs in precise language for the re-definitions and conflations that reign currently, especially those which live in the media and within TDS observance. The Derangement hasn't diminished whatsoever.
It's long in page count and it jumps. It also has more quotes from every horse's mouth than I think I've ever read in one politico book at one time. He takes examples, mostly from the ancient Greek wars but makes parallels throughout other histories, as well; to why a Donald Trump was needed and why he succeeded. Precisely labeled and documented at that. So many categories of "not my America" were crossed after 2006 or so.
It's about what was needed first to at least stop enabling the incestuous Swamp of two self ingratiating elitist parties. And what happened in 2016 because of what had gone on before. And why. It's more about the Democrats and what used to be called Liberals than it is about Trump. But he gets the first 18 months or so of Trump's Presidency in there too. Tons and tons of Obama and company, H. Clinton quotes- and erudite study of the "reactions" to them. And how identity politics infuriates and divides. And did. And does. Still and immensely.
Very difficult read because of the massive amounts of erudite stats, Hanson expert past study (numerous equivalencies within other past human governance) and California "celeb" experiences of first hand (he lives in the house in which he was born in California "inner" farmland/ ranch country). Those beyond all the quotes and eye witness passages- its continuity is often disturbed. Thus minus the 1 star. But the body of knowledge to all of these factions and histories is immense. And also finely nuance skinned.
This is over the top for pure amounts of facts within practical applications outcomes (economics in phases both national and international), and citizen situations and reactions during the last 10 years of Obama's shafting, ignoring and chiding. And the intense politicizing within so many non-elected federal government departments, most especially in their directive and administrative "heads". Trump needed as chemotherapy for that governmental cancer in particular- but also for the international agreement placements of horrendous U.S. disadvantage too. And other "eyes" perceptions within economics that have virtually dis-enfranchised millions already. (Something that abolishing the Electoral College would complete in entirety.)
But if you are a 40 plus hour a week worker American, I'd go for the Newt Gingrich book. For the time element alone in absorbing all of this sick D.C. It's easy read in comparison. Hanson separates the President from the man and also ends with possible scenarios for Trump's remainder of cycle or cycles. That was 5 star excellent and something that Gingrich's book never visited.
But this one also is probably closer to reality and what used to be call "Truth" than any other I've read on the subject.
It's long in page count and it jumps. It also has more quotes from every horse's mouth than I think I've ever read in one politico book at one time. He takes examples, mostly from the ancient Greek wars but makes parallels throughout other histories, as well; to why a Donald Trump was needed and why he succeeded. Precisely labeled and documented at that. So many categories of "not my America" were crossed after 2006 or so.
It's about what was needed first to at least stop enabling the incestuous Swamp of two self ingratiating elitist parties. And what happened in 2016 because of what had gone on before. And why. It's more about the Democrats and what used to be called Liberals than it is about Trump. But he gets the first 18 months or so of Trump's Presidency in there too. Tons and tons of Obama and company, H. Clinton quotes- and erudite study of the "reactions" to them. And how identity politics infuriates and divides. And did. And does. Still and immensely.
Very difficult read because of the massive amounts of erudite stats, Hanson expert past study (numerous equivalencies within other past human governance) and California "celeb" experiences of first hand (he lives in the house in which he was born in California "inner" farmland/ ranch country). Those beyond all the quotes and eye witness passages- its continuity is often disturbed. Thus minus the 1 star. But the body of knowledge to all of these factions and histories is immense. And also finely nuance skinned.
This is over the top for pure amounts of facts within practical applications outcomes (economics in phases both national and international), and citizen situations and reactions during the last 10 years of Obama's shafting, ignoring and chiding. And the intense politicizing within so many non-elected federal government departments, most especially in their directive and administrative "heads". Trump needed as chemotherapy for that governmental cancer in particular- but also for the international agreement placements of horrendous U.S. disadvantage too. And other "eyes" perceptions within economics that have virtually dis-enfranchised millions already. (Something that abolishing the Electoral College would complete in entirety.)
But if you are a 40 plus hour a week worker American, I'd go for the Newt Gingrich book. For the time element alone in absorbing all of this sick D.C. It's easy read in comparison. Hanson separates the President from the man and also ends with possible scenarios for Trump's remainder of cycle or cycles. That was 5 star excellent and something that Gingrich's book never visited.
But this one also is probably closer to reality and what used to be call "Truth" than any other I've read on the subject.
June 21, 2020
This book is not a paean to Donald Trump. It is rather a very well written analysis by a noted historian and scholar as to why Trump won the Republican primary and the General Election in 2016 as well as his mode of governing. Whether you are a Trump supporter or Trump hater, or somewhere in between, this book is a an excellent discussion of the current state of American politics.
August 2, 2019
A Fox News-esque take on Trump, juxtaposed with ancient history references which seem erudite to the layman, perhaps, but seem questionable in their relevance. An instance which sticks in my head is when he characterizes Trump as a tragic hero similar to Achilles, who vied against a "deep-state" Agamemnon. Earlier on, he compares Trump's understanding of distinctions between "pretexts" and "true causes" as similar to that of Thucydides in a very vague fashion. These instances felt more like Victor Davis Hanson reminding the reader of his education level, rather than apt analogies.
So while I think Hanson is an intelligent man, and the question of why Trump got elected is answered in part in this book, a lot of this is an elderly Fox News pundit putting Fox News-level scrutiny on everything the Dems have said or done, while giving everyone on the Right (other than the Never-Trumpers, of course, as well as the indefensible Trump himself) more or less a pass. Republican gaffes are merely "clumsy," while Democratic ones are looked at in the worst light possible. Thus while Hanson does point out some ways in which Trump got elected, his "Case for Trump" is more subjective than it is persuasive.
So while I think Hanson is an intelligent man, and the question of why Trump got elected is answered in part in this book, a lot of this is an elderly Fox News pundit putting Fox News-level scrutiny on everything the Dems have said or done, while giving everyone on the Right (other than the Never-Trumpers, of course, as well as the indefensible Trump himself) more or less a pass. Republican gaffes are merely "clumsy," while Democratic ones are looked at in the worst light possible. Thus while Hanson does point out some ways in which Trump got elected, his "Case for Trump" is more subjective than it is persuasive.
March 17, 2019
The main thing I took from this book is how skilled a weaver of convincing narrative Hanson is. He does a quite marvelous job of explaining how and why Trump won both the presidential candidacy and the 2016 election. Whether his explanation is true or not, well, I'm not politically learned enough to judge, but it certainly seems persuasive to me.
Another takeaway is how carefully Hanson walks the line between admiration for Trump's policies (and their apparent domestic economic successes) and Trump the man.
Is Trump a good person? It's hard to answer that in the affirmative. Is he a good President? It's too early to answer definitively but like with many things in life, complex questions have complex answers. Rarely is anything black and white. There is always a place for nuance and context is king. Only history will provide such context.
Another takeaway is how carefully Hanson walks the line between admiration for Trump's policies (and their apparent domestic economic successes) and Trump the man.
Is Trump a good person? It's hard to answer that in the affirmative. Is he a good President? It's too early to answer definitively but like with many things in life, complex questions have complex answers. Rarely is anything black and white. There is always a place for nuance and context is king. Only history will provide such context.
March 6, 2019
A literate, thoughtful, fact-based dissertation on why Trump won in 2016, the promises he's fulfilled since taking office, and the vast wasteland of the DNC. What I particularly enjoyed about Hanson's writing was his ability to paint analogies that clearly explain the successes and failures of both parties. Should be required reading.
April 21, 2019
Going to start by saying that this will piss some people off. I am not going to get into a Goodreads rant and flaming war so don't bother responding with vitriol and nasty comments. These are my opinions and mine alone. I respect your, respect mine.
Another Trump book, but with a twist. I am not a "Trump supporter" although I did vote for him..... well actually I voted ore against Hillary. I do not think 2016 was a good year for this country at face value. On one hand, you had Donald Trump, a monastic but crude, rude, insulting individual with complete disregard for the norms of presidency in the country, or a washed up, corrupt, criminal (IMHO) on so many level, insincere, entitled fool. From what I can see as of this writing, 2020 is shaping up to be much of the same.
f you thought this book was puff piece on Trump, you would be mistaken. Although Hanson does agree with some of Trumps accomplishments, he does not hold back on Trump. Equally, he does an amazing job analyzing Hillary Clinton and why she did not win. Hanson is not a shill for Trump.
Hanson is an intelligent man and if you have ever heard him speak, he is soft spoken and very smart. I tend to read books by authors and not so much pundits or politicians. This book covers the rise of Trump in the Presidential aspect. Obviously written before the Muller report was released (just last week), but does talk about the process that led to the investigation in the first place. I think that now that the Muller report is released, you will see a release of the information that led to the appointment of the special council. If Trump wins again, you are going to see the Democratic controlled congress have to deny the special council into the investigation of Obama and Clinton and their actions during the warrants obtained during the 2016 election. They will wither need to obstruct or fall on their swords and run the gauntlet to see what comes out.
It is truly amazing to me the hypocrisy we are seeing today.
Let me begin by refuting everything that I may be accused of; I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I do not watch Fox News, and I am not a Tea Party Member. I live by a mantra of "No groups, no colors, no hyphenations and no labels", I am not a Neo-Nazi, a White Nationalist, or a Racist. My parents are Cuban as are all my family members so I am not against hispanics either. I think women are 100% equal to men, however feel that shivery is not dead, and I like to hold doors, give up my seat, and other things that a gentlemen should do. Here we go.
I truly believe that the Democratic Party (herein Democrats or dems.... I know it a sore spot for some) has a challenge this election. Aside from the lackluster candidates it has here are a few issues I see. There is no consistency in that party. They have strayed away from the original Democrat Party. It has been overrun and taken over much like the Republicans were taken over and overrun by the Tea Party.
Issue with women
Democrats will tell you that Trump should have been disqualified as a presidential candidate because of his remark of "grab them by the pussy", however you had Bill Clinton, still lauded by their side and the husband of the Presidential hopeful of Hillary Clinton, accused, multiple time for actually doing what Trump "SAID" he COULD do as a "Famous Person". I disagree with what he said and think it is disgusting to do that. However, being a man, I know a thing or two about how men talk. Behind the scenes, that is the talk that goes on. Sexual exaggerations, talk about how large their genitalia is, how women are secretly in love with them, and the performance; past, present and future which usually is a bunch of falsehoods. How does Clinton get a pass?
The other piece, is that Democrats have adopted a "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset. Here we have a political party that purports to be staunch supporters of women and for equality for women, however they support and constantly defend a religion that is open about its "discrimination" (not in their view (the religion) of course because they believe and support it), the value that gays and women have in their views and how they want to bring that structure to the U.S. How do the Democrats wrap their arms and head around this? How do they morally accept this as acceptable? Additionally, even my comments in the beginning of this writing, could make me a target for feminist groups that supported Hillary, but apparently "WOMEN" are not equal in these group's eyes. I wrote another review talking about the shirts that Liberal women were wearing in 2008 that said "Sarah Palin is a Cunt", they decimated her in the media and every opportunity they could get, even her daughters were targets of the vitriol, and yet NONE of the women's groups came out agains this. Recently, you had women and men attacking Huckabee-Sanders, Kelly Ann-Conway and others of Trump's administration, and crickets from the same. How is this possible? Is it a a women's group or a Democratic Party Women's group?
Science
The Democrats will tell you that climate change is a settled issue. "The Science is in and it is final". They tell you that the Scientist have weighed in and there is no room to even have a discussion about it. However, with the same breath, they will tell you that even though "SCIENCE" has stated that there are two genders (male and female) that somehow, that is Science 1.0 and should be ignored for the more progressive thought process of, "you can be any gender you want and even make up your own". Apparently the "Climate Change Science" is v2.0 and is somehow "new and improved" than its predecessor, v1.0 which had flaws.
Morality
Apparently, now you do not have to be worried about being "semantically correct on the facts" but more importantly, you need to be "morally correct". In my opinion, Morality is a dirty word. Morality is subjective. You can ask 100 people, 100 questions trying to gauge their morality and you would get 100 different answers. To think that someone in D.C. that does know me, nor care about me save my vote, somehow knows what is moral to me is offensive. Additionally, the Democrats support abortion, some even late term and even after birth (supported by some of the Democratic Party). How is this moral? I am not against abortion, but for the most part, a women should know she is pregnant early on and should take steps if she wants to terminate. I am for better test being developed that would be able to identify pregnancy earlier.
The other piece is, women have a right to their reproductive process and decisions. This is true and I agree, but if we are talking about "EQUALITY" why is it that the man has NO SAY in that decision. Understandably on the termination side, I could see how a woman would have that decision, but why is it that the man will have to live with said decision. Here is what I mean. If a women decides to terminate the pregnancy, the man has zero right to say or do anything. However if the woman decides to have the child, the man is compelled, by law and fear of jail to support the decision made by the woman. Why then does the man not have "equal" opportunity to make that decision? "Equal" is a double-edged sword. Not only that, but we should then make prostitution legal. I am for that by the way. I do not partake but to each their own. But if a woman has the full and unconditional right to her reproductive process, we can easily argue that the vagina is a major portion of that process and as such, a woman can decide to give it away freely, rent it, sell it etc.
Rich White Men
So it goes that Trump was bad and the Republicans are bad because of the "Rich White Men" however looking at the 2020 hopefuls on the Left, the tope three runners are..... yes Rich White Men. Again the party is going to either have to convince the public that THESE Rich White Men are the RWM 2.0 and not the old v1.0 of the Republican Party.
Illegal Immigration
The Democrats will tell you that they are for immigration, as am I an I believe most of the US. However the democrats have gone a step further and said that they condone illegal immigration and some cities and states have made a conscious effort to vote on state and city legislation about their "Sanctuary" status. They will tell you a ridiculous story of how illegal immigrants (or undocumented as they like to call it) actually increases and enhance the local economy and that it is good for the economy in general, however when faced with a recent Trump threat of releasing thousands of "undocumented" people into these very same cities and states, they call foul and say it is "illegal" for Trump to do this, surely they meant to say "Undocumented".
Civility
Trump says some insane things and is many times hurtful and can sound disgusting with some of the things he says. However, when Robert DeNiro comes out on national television and the first words out of his mouth is "Fuck Trump" then proceeds to say that Trump is rude and disgusting? This is somehow better? Is DeNiro's hatred towards Trump the new and improved 2.0 while Trumps is 1.0? The things that are constantly said about Trump, his wife, young son, and the other family members is lower and more vile than anything Trump has said, even the "pussy" statement. Why is it OK to have so much hate, anger, disrespect, vitriol and spitefulness for someone and then when asked why you hate him, say that he is everything you feel about HIM. He is either not that bad, or you are as bad as he is. There is no other option. If you do not take off your partisan glasses, you will not see it. I remember years ago, I posted a picture of a baby Obama crying in a diaper. I posted it with a comment about Obama crying that something did not happen or something stupid like that. I was summarily blasted by hundreds of people calling me racist and other pejoratives. George Bush was the official punching bag during Obama's 8 years and even during the Bush administration. It was OK for people to bash him (BTW I think a lot of it was well deserved), but NOT Obama but yes on Trump? Do you see a pattern? The behavior I have seen from law makers on the left as well as the leftists in general pail in comparison to anything Trump has said or done. Really analyze that.
These are just a few things that I struggle with. When people stop blindly supporting their party and start demanding that the lawmakers act the way they should, then and only then will things change. If you follow the Democrat primaries or the candidates that are going around the country today, it feels as though anyone heckling anything at them gets support. I want to go to a rally and yell out "We should all have free pickles" and see how many candidates say "Yes, I am for that. We should have free pickles for all. Too much time has gone by without them". It is absurd.
Another Trump book, but with a twist. I am not a "Trump supporter" although I did vote for him..... well actually I voted ore against Hillary. I do not think 2016 was a good year for this country at face value. On one hand, you had Donald Trump, a monastic but crude, rude, insulting individual with complete disregard for the norms of presidency in the country, or a washed up, corrupt, criminal (IMHO) on so many level, insincere, entitled fool. From what I can see as of this writing, 2020 is shaping up to be much of the same.
f you thought this book was puff piece on Trump, you would be mistaken. Although Hanson does agree with some of Trumps accomplishments, he does not hold back on Trump. Equally, he does an amazing job analyzing Hillary Clinton and why she did not win. Hanson is not a shill for Trump.
Hanson is an intelligent man and if you have ever heard him speak, he is soft spoken and very smart. I tend to read books by authors and not so much pundits or politicians. This book covers the rise of Trump in the Presidential aspect. Obviously written before the Muller report was released (just last week), but does talk about the process that led to the investigation in the first place. I think that now that the Muller report is released, you will see a release of the information that led to the appointment of the special council. If Trump wins again, you are going to see the Democratic controlled congress have to deny the special council into the investigation of Obama and Clinton and their actions during the warrants obtained during the 2016 election. They will wither need to obstruct or fall on their swords and run the gauntlet to see what comes out.
It is truly amazing to me the hypocrisy we are seeing today.
Let me begin by refuting everything that I may be accused of; I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I do not watch Fox News, and I am not a Tea Party Member. I live by a mantra of "No groups, no colors, no hyphenations and no labels", I am not a Neo-Nazi, a White Nationalist, or a Racist. My parents are Cuban as are all my family members so I am not against hispanics either. I think women are 100% equal to men, however feel that shivery is not dead, and I like to hold doors, give up my seat, and other things that a gentlemen should do. Here we go.
I truly believe that the Democratic Party (herein Democrats or dems.... I know it a sore spot for some) has a challenge this election. Aside from the lackluster candidates it has here are a few issues I see. There is no consistency in that party. They have strayed away from the original Democrat Party. It has been overrun and taken over much like the Republicans were taken over and overrun by the Tea Party.
Issue with women
Democrats will tell you that Trump should have been disqualified as a presidential candidate because of his remark of "grab them by the pussy", however you had Bill Clinton, still lauded by their side and the husband of the Presidential hopeful of Hillary Clinton, accused, multiple time for actually doing what Trump "SAID" he COULD do as a "Famous Person". I disagree with what he said and think it is disgusting to do that. However, being a man, I know a thing or two about how men talk. Behind the scenes, that is the talk that goes on. Sexual exaggerations, talk about how large their genitalia is, how women are secretly in love with them, and the performance; past, present and future which usually is a bunch of falsehoods. How does Clinton get a pass?
The other piece, is that Democrats have adopted a "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset. Here we have a political party that purports to be staunch supporters of women and for equality for women, however they support and constantly defend a religion that is open about its "discrimination" (not in their view (the religion) of course because they believe and support it), the value that gays and women have in their views and how they want to bring that structure to the U.S. How do the Democrats wrap their arms and head around this? How do they morally accept this as acceptable? Additionally, even my comments in the beginning of this writing, could make me a target for feminist groups that supported Hillary, but apparently "WOMEN" are not equal in these group's eyes. I wrote another review talking about the shirts that Liberal women were wearing in 2008 that said "Sarah Palin is a Cunt", they decimated her in the media and every opportunity they could get, even her daughters were targets of the vitriol, and yet NONE of the women's groups came out agains this. Recently, you had women and men attacking Huckabee-Sanders, Kelly Ann-Conway and others of Trump's administration, and crickets from the same. How is this possible? Is it a a women's group or a Democratic Party Women's group?
Science
The Democrats will tell you that climate change is a settled issue. "The Science is in and it is final". They tell you that the Scientist have weighed in and there is no room to even have a discussion about it. However, with the same breath, they will tell you that even though "SCIENCE" has stated that there are two genders (male and female) that somehow, that is Science 1.0 and should be ignored for the more progressive thought process of, "you can be any gender you want and even make up your own". Apparently the "Climate Change Science" is v2.0 and is somehow "new and improved" than its predecessor, v1.0 which had flaws.
Morality
Apparently, now you do not have to be worried about being "semantically correct on the facts" but more importantly, you need to be "morally correct". In my opinion, Morality is a dirty word. Morality is subjective. You can ask 100 people, 100 questions trying to gauge their morality and you would get 100 different answers. To think that someone in D.C. that does know me, nor care about me save my vote, somehow knows what is moral to me is offensive. Additionally, the Democrats support abortion, some even late term and even after birth (supported by some of the Democratic Party). How is this moral? I am not against abortion, but for the most part, a women should know she is pregnant early on and should take steps if she wants to terminate. I am for better test being developed that would be able to identify pregnancy earlier.
The other piece is, women have a right to their reproductive process and decisions. This is true and I agree, but if we are talking about "EQUALITY" why is it that the man has NO SAY in that decision. Understandably on the termination side, I could see how a woman would have that decision, but why is it that the man will have to live with said decision. Here is what I mean. If a women decides to terminate the pregnancy, the man has zero right to say or do anything. However if the woman decides to have the child, the man is compelled, by law and fear of jail to support the decision made by the woman. Why then does the man not have "equal" opportunity to make that decision? "Equal" is a double-edged sword. Not only that, but we should then make prostitution legal. I am for that by the way. I do not partake but to each their own. But if a woman has the full and unconditional right to her reproductive process, we can easily argue that the vagina is a major portion of that process and as such, a woman can decide to give it away freely, rent it, sell it etc.
Rich White Men
So it goes that Trump was bad and the Republicans are bad because of the "Rich White Men" however looking at the 2020 hopefuls on the Left, the tope three runners are..... yes Rich White Men. Again the party is going to either have to convince the public that THESE Rich White Men are the RWM 2.0 and not the old v1.0 of the Republican Party.
Illegal Immigration
The Democrats will tell you that they are for immigration, as am I an I believe most of the US. However the democrats have gone a step further and said that they condone illegal immigration and some cities and states have made a conscious effort to vote on state and city legislation about their "Sanctuary" status. They will tell you a ridiculous story of how illegal immigrants (or undocumented as they like to call it) actually increases and enhance the local economy and that it is good for the economy in general, however when faced with a recent Trump threat of releasing thousands of "undocumented" people into these very same cities and states, they call foul and say it is "illegal" for Trump to do this, surely they meant to say "Undocumented".
Civility
Trump says some insane things and is many times hurtful and can sound disgusting with some of the things he says. However, when Robert DeNiro comes out on national television and the first words out of his mouth is "Fuck Trump" then proceeds to say that Trump is rude and disgusting? This is somehow better? Is DeNiro's hatred towards Trump the new and improved 2.0 while Trumps is 1.0? The things that are constantly said about Trump, his wife, young son, and the other family members is lower and more vile than anything Trump has said, even the "pussy" statement. Why is it OK to have so much hate, anger, disrespect, vitriol and spitefulness for someone and then when asked why you hate him, say that he is everything you feel about HIM. He is either not that bad, or you are as bad as he is. There is no other option. If you do not take off your partisan glasses, you will not see it. I remember years ago, I posted a picture of a baby Obama crying in a diaper. I posted it with a comment about Obama crying that something did not happen or something stupid like that. I was summarily blasted by hundreds of people calling me racist and other pejoratives. George Bush was the official punching bag during Obama's 8 years and even during the Bush administration. It was OK for people to bash him (BTW I think a lot of it was well deserved), but NOT Obama but yes on Trump? Do you see a pattern? The behavior I have seen from law makers on the left as well as the leftists in general pail in comparison to anything Trump has said or done. Really analyze that.
These are just a few things that I struggle with. When people stop blindly supporting their party and start demanding that the lawmakers act the way they should, then and only then will things change. If you follow the Democrat primaries or the candidates that are going around the country today, it feels as though anyone heckling anything at them gets support. I want to go to a rally and yell out "We should all have free pickles" and see how many candidates say "Yes, I am for that. We should have free pickles for all. Too much time has gone by without them". It is absurd.
September 7, 2019
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow in military history at the Hoover institution at Stanford University and a professor of classics at California state university, Fresno. The case for Trump was published in 2019, to date it is the best explanation for the rise and success of Trump that I’ve read. At times it’s very funny,intelligent, balanced, well argued... I would find myself laughing a lot at the way Hanson would describe Trumps tweets. His grasp on history is second to none when it comes to modern historians that I am aware of (if anyone has any suggestions on solid historians I would love to know). Hanson really shines when it comes to both ancient Greek and Athenian history, warfare, and literature and I think it’s obvious that a large bulk of his passion seems to be for that time period, however he seems razor sharp with all history.
Chapter Seven
Trump on Decline
“The western world has lost its civic courage ...
Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable
Among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.”
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Harvard commencement address, 1978
Ch 11 Trump, the Tragic Hero ?
This chapter is amazing , Hanson’s use of Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector .... and the way he compares to Trump as the tragic hero that will never be realized as most tragic hero’s are not is fantastic.
This entire book is Excellent and well worth the time it takes to read it , Hanson delivers a master argument in the case for Trump, no other books on the market even come close. The way Hanson infuses history with this modern political climate just turns all the bunk on its head shakes out the fleas and sends them scurrying for another trash novel to lie in wait for their next unsuspecting victim. You will not get filler or feelings from this book , this book is logic and it’s a pure read.
5 out of 5!
Chapter Seven
Trump on Decline
“The western world has lost its civic courage ...
Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable
Among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.”
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Harvard commencement address, 1978
Ch 11 Trump, the Tragic Hero ?
This chapter is amazing , Hanson’s use of Achilles, Agamemnon, Hector .... and the way he compares to Trump as the tragic hero that will never be realized as most tragic hero’s are not is fantastic.
This entire book is Excellent and well worth the time it takes to read it , Hanson delivers a master argument in the case for Trump, no other books on the market even come close. The way Hanson infuses history with this modern political climate just turns all the bunk on its head shakes out the fleas and sends them scurrying for another trash novel to lie in wait for their next unsuspecting victim. You will not get filler or feelings from this book , this book is logic and it’s a pure read.
5 out of 5!
September 20, 2020
In “The Case For Trump,” noted historian Victor Davis Hanson, who, although a conservative, is not necessarily a fan of Trump, presents the historical context for Trump’s seemingly improbable victory in 2016. The story begins with Trump’s gut sense that the middle of the country has been ignored by both parties as the economy was hollowed out in smaller midwestern cities and jobs shipped off around the world wherever cheap labor flourishes. Neither party has for decades put up a candidate who could appeal to blue collar flyover country and the elitists in DC and on both coasts from Romney to Obama mocked hardworking Americans of all races and ethnicities who loved the flag and God and traditional family. Indeed, as the 2016 campaign got underway, one candidate laughingly referred to middle America as “deplorables” and assumed they were all racists and homophobes merely because they didn’t support her corrupt elitist candidacy. Trump somehow despite being wealthy saw himself as an ordinary American and felt they pain.
Hanson explores how a candidate and then President could be so gruff, course, and sometimes mean. Historically, Hanson found evidence that perhaps Trump was no more course than Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, or Johnson, and certainly not more course than William Clinton. Moreover, Hanson explores whether being a perfect gentleman like Carter or Ford led to success or just mediocrity. In spite of a course loud abrasive attitude, Trump succeeded in creating the best economy ever (until the Covid 19 lockdowns), brought peace to the Middle East, and faces down the threats from Iran and North Korea without losing any ground or surrendering pallets of cash as his predecessor did.
It is a very interesting historical expose as, in reading it, you almost feel like the academic Hanson only grudgingly wants to give credit to a loudmouth from Queens. But what always makes Hanson’s work so insightful is that he gives appropriate historical context and is open to seeing all sides.
Hanson explores how a candidate and then President could be so gruff, course, and sometimes mean. Historically, Hanson found evidence that perhaps Trump was no more course than Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, or Johnson, and certainly not more course than William Clinton. Moreover, Hanson explores whether being a perfect gentleman like Carter or Ford led to success or just mediocrity. In spite of a course loud abrasive attitude, Trump succeeded in creating the best economy ever (until the Covid 19 lockdowns), brought peace to the Middle East, and faces down the threats from Iran and North Korea without losing any ground or surrendering pallets of cash as his predecessor did.
It is a very interesting historical expose as, in reading it, you almost feel like the academic Hanson only grudgingly wants to give credit to a loudmouth from Queens. But what always makes Hanson’s work so insightful is that he gives appropriate historical context and is open to seeing all sides.
July 14, 2019
There are two sides to this book. First, are the sentiments expressed. Hanson expresses clearly why Trump voters are so supportive while he rails against Democratic progressives. If you are a Trump supporter, this book will resonate with you. Second, are the facts. To say Hanson is loose with the facts is an understatement. I fact-checked about the first 50 pages of the text and occasionally thereafter. His facts are just plain wrong. For example, as do many Trump supporters, he rails against Obama's use of executive orders. in fact, Obama's and George W Bush's use of executive orders were two of the lowest since Grover Cleveland Alexander in the 1880s. Similarly, Hanson states that the labor force participation at 63% is the highest in 15 years. Wrong again! The book is riddled with inaccurate facts that are commonly accepted in conservative circles, but which in fact are just plain wrong.
March 15, 2019
Excellent book. This book does a great job of explaining why Trump was elected, how the media, Hollywood, coastal elites have a hatred of Trump that is more vile and disgusting than anything we’ve seen since McCarthy . The social media mob, the ivory tower professors and media pundits have focused vulgar, often violent attacks on a sitting president. Imagine the outrage if the same level of negativity had been directed at Obama . In spite of it all, Trump’s results in only two years have outstripped Obama’s in 8 years. I don’t think the anti Trumpers will believe any of it, but it’s all verifiable . Glad Hanson wrote it. Glad I read it.
April 23, 2019
Brilliant. VDH is one of the most insightful commentators of our time. This is a well-balanced book that avoids the twin pitfalls of Trump worship and Trump Derangement Syndrome. Highly recommended
May 13, 2019
Anyone who has seen Victor Davis Hanson’s interviews on cable television or his videos on YouTube can attest to his ability to make complicated subjects understandable using his straight-thinking logic and clear-headed manner of speech. He is certainly a national treasure.
In The Case for Trump, Victor Davis Hanson provides readers with a concise and eminently readable account of the campaign, the election of 2016 and its aftermath. Hanson presents in an unbiased way, the reasons Trump won and Clinton lost, and the turmoil that has transpired during the two years since Trump took office.
He begins his book by saying that he’s never met Trump and that his family is made up of steadfast Democrats, so don’t expect the text to be an exercise in hero-worship. He conveys positive and negative information on both candidates freely and without personal commentary.
Essentially, the book is an exercise in ‘compare and contrast’ with facts about each candidate and political party supported by quotes and information from a variety of public records and sources. Equally, it compares and contrasts prior administrations’ actions (or failures) with Trump’s actions, failures (few) and successes (many) over the past two years.
This book could not have been written any sooner after the election. It required time and effort to cull the information and give it thoughtful introspection and review before committing his thoughts to paper; Hanson has completed both tasks admirably. It was worth waiting for.
Most people are comfortable in their routines, so it is unlikely that most of the public made the effort to get out of their comfort zone to check different news sources in order to form their opinions before the 2016 vote; no doubt they retain their same viewpoints today. Trump supporters have been loyal, as have Clinton supporters. Some Never Trumpers are still firmly entrenched in their milieu. The value of this book is in its analysis, which is presented with the quirks of human nature in mind. Hanson summarizes the events leading up to, through, and after the campaign, the 2016 election and current presidency in a thorough and non-judgmental way without editorial comment. If Martians just landed on Earth today, they could learn everything they would need to know about the most recent U.S. presidential election and political process from Hanson’s analysis.
This book will make a great historical record of the election in terms of how the candidates were selected and what caused the voters to cast their ballots in each candidate’s direction. Unfortunately, most historians will prefer to parrot whatever “information” they are most comfortable with.
The chapter comparing Clinton and Trump is enlightening. Hanson enumerates point after point illustrating just how one candidate was the polar opposite of the other. Fascinating.
This is a book everyone should read. (Not because it will change anyone’s mind about current politics, but because it provides accurate information in a concise, comprehensible form without unduly criticizing one side at the expense of the other. In contemporary politics, there is plenty of blame to go around.) But, in light of the current political divisions in the country and the individual’s intrinsic need to remain entrenched in their beliefs, I know that some people won’t. Truly, it is their loss.
In The Case for Trump, Victor Davis Hanson provides readers with a concise and eminently readable account of the campaign, the election of 2016 and its aftermath. Hanson presents in an unbiased way, the reasons Trump won and Clinton lost, and the turmoil that has transpired during the two years since Trump took office.
He begins his book by saying that he’s never met Trump and that his family is made up of steadfast Democrats, so don’t expect the text to be an exercise in hero-worship. He conveys positive and negative information on both candidates freely and without personal commentary.
Essentially, the book is an exercise in ‘compare and contrast’ with facts about each candidate and political party supported by quotes and information from a variety of public records and sources. Equally, it compares and contrasts prior administrations’ actions (or failures) with Trump’s actions, failures (few) and successes (many) over the past two years.
This book could not have been written any sooner after the election. It required time and effort to cull the information and give it thoughtful introspection and review before committing his thoughts to paper; Hanson has completed both tasks admirably. It was worth waiting for.
Most people are comfortable in their routines, so it is unlikely that most of the public made the effort to get out of their comfort zone to check different news sources in order to form their opinions before the 2016 vote; no doubt they retain their same viewpoints today. Trump supporters have been loyal, as have Clinton supporters. Some Never Trumpers are still firmly entrenched in their milieu. The value of this book is in its analysis, which is presented with the quirks of human nature in mind. Hanson summarizes the events leading up to, through, and after the campaign, the 2016 election and current presidency in a thorough and non-judgmental way without editorial comment. If Martians just landed on Earth today, they could learn everything they would need to know about the most recent U.S. presidential election and political process from Hanson’s analysis.
This book will make a great historical record of the election in terms of how the candidates were selected and what caused the voters to cast their ballots in each candidate’s direction. Unfortunately, most historians will prefer to parrot whatever “information” they are most comfortable with.
The chapter comparing Clinton and Trump is enlightening. Hanson enumerates point after point illustrating just how one candidate was the polar opposite of the other. Fascinating.
This is a book everyone should read. (Not because it will change anyone’s mind about current politics, but because it provides accurate information in a concise, comprehensible form without unduly criticizing one side at the expense of the other. In contemporary politics, there is plenty of blame to go around.) But, in light of the current political divisions in the country and the individual’s intrinsic need to remain entrenched in their beliefs, I know that some people won’t. Truly, it is their loss.
June 7, 2019
I chose to read this book because I know Victor Davis Hanson is an intelligent knowledgeable person and I wanted to get his perspective on the Trump presidency. As might be expected from a historian of the Greek classical era there are many references to characters and writings that I know nothing about. There is a lot to slog through and I thought that few people would want to read it. However there is a rather long waiting list at my local library so it is of some interest. To anyone who has been following the news over the past several years this will be much repetition. I was particularly interested in chapter 9 where Henson reviews the history of past presidencies Our country has seen men with character flaws that otherwise proved to be positive leaders of our country.
“Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were emblematic of flyover-state rocksolid values. They stayed married. They did not cash in while In their offices. They largely told the truth. Their administration’s were mostly free of scandal at least in comparison to those of Clinton and Obama administrations. . . Not arguments that good character does not matter, only that it is not always a guarantee of good governance.”
President Trump is egotistic, bombastic, crude and makes me very angry at times and yet our country is prospering more than it has in the last several presidencies. I just wish that there wasn’t this overwhelming hatred of the man that I see in daily news reports.
“Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were emblematic of flyover-state rocksolid values. They stayed married. They did not cash in while In their offices. They largely told the truth. Their administration’s were mostly free of scandal at least in comparison to those of Clinton and Obama administrations. . . Not arguments that good character does not matter, only that it is not always a guarantee of good governance.”
President Trump is egotistic, bombastic, crude and makes me very angry at times and yet our country is prospering more than it has in the last several presidencies. I just wish that there wasn’t this overwhelming hatred of the man that I see in daily news reports.
June 13, 2020
I could not finish this book. I read it because it was referenced online as a balanced perspective as a conservative viewpoint. It reads like Simple English Wikipedia trying to explain why so many people voted for Trump. I would say that if you were trying to explain to a 5-year-old how the current president got elected this would be my go-to book. For any other purposes it didn't seem to hold any new information it wasn't immediately obvious or derivable from anyone paying attention to the current milieu.
Want to read
November 16, 2020
May 23, 2019
Impressive analysis of our current President by the sharpest knife in today's historical drawer. Very highly recommended.
March 18, 2019
This book is dedicated to “the deplorables.” LOL. Henry Kissinger said in July 2018: “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretense.” This book analyzes the Trump rise, and the positive changes he’s made, in tax policy, judicial appointments, foreign policy, deregulation, pulling out of a bad deal with Iran and not joining the Paris climate accord (and the US did better at reducing carbon emissions than had almost all its European critics). He’s doing what he said he would. Trump got no honeymoon from the media. Hanson writes he has no interest in proving Trump either a demon or a deity. Instead, this is an accomplished historian’s analysis of Trump, and I found it an excellent dissection of his first couple of years in office. Hanson takes no prisoners when it comes to taking down the Left’s ideas, and even some Never Trumpers (including Hanson’t colleagues at National Review). Clinton is considered a better president than Jimmy Carter, but a worse man. And there’s more lunacy from the Hollywood Left. I disagree with Hanson over the free vs. fair trade issue, and the imposition of tariffs, though I will admit that China does steal our IP, and there may be a negotiation tactic in imposing tariffs to get a better trade deal. That remains to be seen. Trade deficits are meaningless, whether they are a surplus or deficit, an accounting fiction that don’t depict the reality of mutually beneficial trade. Hanson argues that the voters saw Trump as chemotherapy, which is used to combat something far worse than itself. He offers many accounts of how Trump responds to those who attack him first, such as John McCain, who called Trump voters “crazies.” I’ve always liked what columnist Salena Zito said about Trump: “The press take him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” He details the Mueller investigation, and quotes Soviet Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, said after the election of Trump was due to voter boredom and “data shows that boredom led to fascism and also the communist revolutions.” Can he be that clueless with respect to history, and the Left’s constant support of communism and fascism? He also argues that Hillary Clinton created the Trump presidency. Her misdeeds were far worse than her reputation; his reputation far worse than his misdeeds. An interesting take on Trump is his hamartia—a fatal flaw leading to the downfall of a tragic hero. Is this Trump’s destiny? Hanson has a chapter dedicated to exploring this idea, and it’s fascinating, and persuasive. He’s likely to end in one of two ways: “Unacknowledged accomplishments followed by ostracism, or less likely, a single term due to the eventual embarrassment of his beneficiaries, as if his utility is no longer worth the wages of his perceived crudity.” Time will tell.
March 23, 2019
In this book, Victor Davis Hanson manages to explain the rise of Trump and, if a person is even slightly charitably inclined toward the president, to make the case that he is a necessary rebalancing of American politics. VDH is a classicist, an expert on the Peloponnesian Wars, and is inclined to take the long view. He is not at his best when discussing a contemporaneous subject, yet he isn't so strongly invested in Trump that he needs to rely on contentious, volatile, or weakly-sourced claims. For this reason, I think this book will age better than "Fire and Fury" or "Fear", both of which barely made it to their publication dates before they started to fall apart. This is an easy and fun polemic, and would probably be a good read for people who simply can't even begin to understand where Trump came from or why anyone supports him (i.e. precisely the people who will not read it).
April 1, 2019
Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite historians. Ironically, the title to his new book – how timely – is misleading. Hanson doesn’t support Trump; rather, he does an outstanding job analyzing American politics that brought us to the 2016 election, Trump’s surprise victory, and how the Democrats have responded: It was Russian collusion! With Robert Mueller’s report completed, Hanson’s analysis is confirmed. Our American political system is in deep trouble. One of the best political books you’ll read this year.
September 3, 2019
Victor Hanson's stunning narrative of the rise of Donald Trump and the success of the first 2 years of his presidency is a must read for any conservative who wants to dive deeper than what the media is allowing to come out of Washington. This book is very easy to read and was hard for me to put down. The arguments are easy to understand and worth remembering whenever you need to discuss why you support this president. I highly recommend it to those interested in politics and recent political history.
March 14, 2019
Historian Victor Hanson, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, analyzes the reason for President Trump’s success - both with his election and during his first two years in office. I particularly like his comparison of Trump to chemotherapy - a badly needed but toxic treatment for the progressive deep state inflicted on the US by Obama. On the other hand it is probably premature to characterize Trump as a tragic hero. Recommended!
March 25, 2019
I've read a lot of articles by Victor Davis Hanson, and one excellent previous book; "Why the West Was Won". He is a PHD level classisist, farmer, militarubooks historian, proffessor, and frequent contributor to National Review. He is a conservative intellectual -- the very species the left in the US today would say is extinct, or at least that they would like to hasten the extinction of (See "Passing On The Right", or "The Coddling of the American Mind")
The book is a good summary of the rise of the political Trump through his first two years in office, the reaction of media, conservatives, the Republican and Democratic parties, the elite, and most importantly the Deep or Administrative State.
On page 43, is a good quote from Melinda Byerly, founder of the Silicon Valley company Timeshare CMO, who stated: "One thing middle America could do is to realize that no educated person wants to live in a sh**hole with stupid people. Especially violent, racist, and/or misognyistic ones ... When corporations think about where to locate call centers, factories, development centers, etc, they also have to deal with the fact that those towns have nothing going for them. No infrastructure, just a few bars and terrible schooling."
As a guy that grew up in Northern Wisconsin, I'm especially offended by the "few bars" ... I'll have you know that NW WI has A LOT of bars!
Davis never covers the Trump "sh**hole" tempest in a teapot, however at least the tiny minority of Americans who endeavor to look accross tribal boundaries would be likely to agree that middle America is VERY competitive on infrastucture, schools, crime, living standards, etc to elite poopy street cities like San Fransico, shooting galleries like Chicago, and nearly abandoned disasters like Detroit. Both are far superior to the places on earth that Trump supposedly referred to as "sh**holes" in a supposedly closed meeting. Perhaps left wing tribalists might realize that their reference to fellow Americans as living in sh**holes is no more likely to be well received than Trump's supposed slur against areas of the world FAR less desireable than any locale in even heavily declined America.
To the extent it is possible for the proffessional historian Hanson who understands bias and knows he has to manage his own, the book is disspassionate and reads like a history book. The gigantic contrasts between the Trump economy and the Obama economy are well cataloged. It is a matter of record that Obama and all the supposed elite "wise men" declared such an economy to be impossible. As Larry Summers declared (p347), Trumps boast that he would achieve 3% growth was the stuff of those who believe in "tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics."
On page 314, the Obama quote from just before the election is found: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are so decentralized." Naturally, this assumed a Hillary victory. It was only days after the election when MANY previously "serious persons" (eg. left leaning) suddenly became unhinged by supposed "Russian meddling" that they were convinced, (along with Hillary "herself") had rigged the election to a Trump victory.
Today, on the weekend after the Mueller probe has finally ended, we now kneow that not a single endictment was made for "Russian collusion", the supposed purpose of the probe. Although 34 were indicted, NONE were indicted relative to what was supposedly under investigation. They were "collateral damage". As it is often been said, any decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. What is sadder today is that if the ham sandwich shows signs of less than complete feality to progressive dogma, he can also likely get a conviction on SOMETHING ... even "campaign finanance violations", "money laundering", "tax evasion", or of course "lying". Charges rarely even brought against Democrats, and in the rare cases they are, adjudicated with a wrist slap or use of "the comfy chair".
The discussion of the Deep State in the book shows our ever increasing driift toward the totalitarian, where less than sterling progressive politics are punishable by law. Many of the incestuous relationships of Administrative State -> university -> serving Democrat administration -> back to Administrative State, in various 0rders, as well as actual marriages of Administrative State / Democrat operatives to media personailities, judges etc is reported. Ah, the happy Deep State Democrat family!
The book does a great job of documenting where America sits post Obama. Page 286 has a wonderful Peter Fonda quote; "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will stand up against the giant asshole she is married to". So nice to see that the left is rife with compassion, caring and civility.
The challenge of Trump taking on the federal bureaucracy is covered well -- no statistic may be more important than p175, "in 2016 95% of all donations from federal workers went to Hillary Clinton." On the same page, by 2017, there were 3 million civilian federal workers and 22 million state and local government employees. The 3 largest unions were NEA, SEIU and AFSCME ... all 90%+ "progressive". Hillary may have won the popular vote in 2016 (the dead vote and the unregistered Democrat (illegal alien) vote is hard notoriously hard to pin down), but it is clear that any Republican candidate for president spots the Democrat opponent 20+ million votes from goverment employees as well as 10's of millions in donations from them and their unions!
An excellent book for those not already fully convinced that Trump is the almagamation of Hitler, Satan and his own unique evil, unprecedented in history. The Democrat congress has not yet stated that it intends to subpoena everyone who buys this book as they have 60+ people associated with Trump, but it might be a consideration before your purchase ;-) .
The book is a good summary of the rise of the political Trump through his first two years in office, the reaction of media, conservatives, the Republican and Democratic parties, the elite, and most importantly the Deep or Administrative State.
On page 43, is a good quote from Melinda Byerly, founder of the Silicon Valley company Timeshare CMO, who stated: "One thing middle America could do is to realize that no educated person wants to live in a sh**hole with stupid people. Especially violent, racist, and/or misognyistic ones ... When corporations think about where to locate call centers, factories, development centers, etc, they also have to deal with the fact that those towns have nothing going for them. No infrastructure, just a few bars and terrible schooling."
As a guy that grew up in Northern Wisconsin, I'm especially offended by the "few bars" ... I'll have you know that NW WI has A LOT of bars!
Davis never covers the Trump "sh**hole" tempest in a teapot, however at least the tiny minority of Americans who endeavor to look accross tribal boundaries would be likely to agree that middle America is VERY competitive on infrastucture, schools, crime, living standards, etc to elite poopy street cities like San Fransico, shooting galleries like Chicago, and nearly abandoned disasters like Detroit. Both are far superior to the places on earth that Trump supposedly referred to as "sh**holes" in a supposedly closed meeting. Perhaps left wing tribalists might realize that their reference to fellow Americans as living in sh**holes is no more likely to be well received than Trump's supposed slur against areas of the world FAR less desireable than any locale in even heavily declined America.
To the extent it is possible for the proffessional historian Hanson who understands bias and knows he has to manage his own, the book is disspassionate and reads like a history book. The gigantic contrasts between the Trump economy and the Obama economy are well cataloged. It is a matter of record that Obama and all the supposed elite "wise men" declared such an economy to be impossible. As Larry Summers declared (p347), Trumps boast that he would achieve 3% growth was the stuff of those who believe in "tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics."
On page 314, the Obama quote from just before the election is found: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are so decentralized." Naturally, this assumed a Hillary victory. It was only days after the election when MANY previously "serious persons" (eg. left leaning) suddenly became unhinged by supposed "Russian meddling" that they were convinced, (along with Hillary "herself") had rigged the election to a Trump victory.
Today, on the weekend after the Mueller probe has finally ended, we now kneow that not a single endictment was made for "Russian collusion", the supposed purpose of the probe. Although 34 were indicted, NONE were indicted relative to what was supposedly under investigation. They were "collateral damage". As it is often been said, any decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. What is sadder today is that if the ham sandwich shows signs of less than complete feality to progressive dogma, he can also likely get a conviction on SOMETHING ... even "campaign finanance violations", "money laundering", "tax evasion", or of course "lying". Charges rarely even brought against Democrats, and in the rare cases they are, adjudicated with a wrist slap or use of "the comfy chair".
The discussion of the Deep State in the book shows our ever increasing driift toward the totalitarian, where less than sterling progressive politics are punishable by law. Many of the incestuous relationships of Administrative State -> university -> serving Democrat administration -> back to Administrative State, in various 0rders, as well as actual marriages of Administrative State / Democrat operatives to media personailities, judges etc is reported. Ah, the happy Deep State Democrat family!
The book does a great job of documenting where America sits post Obama. Page 286 has a wonderful Peter Fonda quote; "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will stand up against the giant asshole she is married to". So nice to see that the left is rife with compassion, caring and civility.
The challenge of Trump taking on the federal bureaucracy is covered well -- no statistic may be more important than p175, "in 2016 95% of all donations from federal workers went to Hillary Clinton." On the same page, by 2017, there were 3 million civilian federal workers and 22 million state and local government employees. The 3 largest unions were NEA, SEIU and AFSCME ... all 90%+ "progressive". Hillary may have won the popular vote in 2016 (the dead vote and the unregistered Democrat (illegal alien) vote is hard notoriously hard to pin down), but it is clear that any Republican candidate for president spots the Democrat opponent 20+ million votes from goverment employees as well as 10's of millions in donations from them and their unions!
An excellent book for those not already fully convinced that Trump is the almagamation of Hitler, Satan and his own unique evil, unprecedented in history. The Democrat congress has not yet stated that it intends to subpoena everyone who buys this book as they have 60+ people associated with Trump, but it might be a consideration before your purchase ;-) .
May 22, 2019
If you care about history but hate Trump, this book is a well-written counter-argument for how maybe we might all be wrong. Written by a thoughtful academic, this is no hagiography, but rather portrays the arguments for how the times were ripe for such an unlikely President. Trump, the author concludes, is a “tragic hero”, a necessary purgative, an outsider whose role is to shake up a situation that had become too comfortable for too many people. If you think Trump will be remembered as the worst president in history, you may be repeating the mistake made by those who similarly ridiculed Churchill, Lincoln, Patton, and innumerable other historical figures whose many political enemies went to their graves loathing the man, while missing the historic changes they thought they understood.
June 24, 2020
There’s nothing to argue with here.
Prof Hanson lays out the case for Trump from the ground to 35,000 feet.
Free from invectives or media hysteria, Hanson walks through the forces that brought Trump to power, while lambasting those who simply hate Trump unreasoningly.
Prof Hanson lays out the case for Trump from the ground to 35,000 feet.
Free from invectives or media hysteria, Hanson walks through the forces that brought Trump to power, while lambasting those who simply hate Trump unreasoningly.
September 28, 2020
I read this book because I assigned it to my students, but I assigned it to my students in part because I wanted to read a thorough, intellectually hefty defense of Trump.
I was very disappointed.
The largest flaw in this book is endless examples of accepting as true without evidence the very worst characterizations of Democrats, their administrations, and their alleged scandals, while simultaneously accepting the most positive interpretations of everything about Trump. Over and over, we are told that Obama had an apology tour (newsflash--he didn't) or that Trump has a tendency to exaggerate. Every now and then, Hanson admits he's a liar, but you never get a sense of the scale of the lies.
His main criticism of Trump is that he often Tweets outrageous things, he just can't help himself. And he accept as gospel that Trump "became rich" through his genius. Any standard biography of Trump would note that his wealth right now may be significantly lower than what he inherited from his rich dad!
He discredits books by Wolffe (correctly in part) and Woodward because...they lack citations! They don't have enough...
But--there is not one citation in this whole book. So when you are looking to find out why he thinks X or Y, you have no idea.
He gets several important facts wrong about the Mueller report. The FBI DID tell the FISA Court that the Steele dossier was a partisan product. And so one.
Hanson is remarkably ignorant of basic economics (p. 163)
And he thinks the GOP was at its best when it ran the Willie Horton ads of 1988 because that was the one time they were as vicious and amoral as the Democrats. Folks, I've spent years studying the 88 campaign and the Horton ads. They were terrible examples of racism, and that he thinks that is what Trump is bringing back to the GOP is correct--but he thinks that's GREAT.
The only reason I don't give this one star is that there are several passages that provoke thought. A few of his criticisms of liberalism generally and specific liberals ring true. And he does understand and helps the reader understand part of Trump's appeal.
BUT
This Book is soooooooooooo lazy.
Repetitive. Twice says Biden has more appeal than HRC. He falsely claims that HRC slimed Clinton's accusers (she didn't). He blames some of Trump's errors on his undisciplined staff (391) but...HE CHOSE THEM. He says McMaster is a "national icon"--uh...in what nation? He talks about the terrible abuse and threats against Trump...and ignores the rightwing racism that spewed out against Obama and his wife--over and over and over, GOP officials telling jokes about gorillas or water melons or "Obama is going to tax aspirin because its white and it works"
He even accepts, somehow, that there was a "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" the biggest bullshit cultural war phoniness in history.
Saddest thing I can say about this book is...I think this is the best book that is pro-Trump out there. And it mostly sucks.
I was very disappointed.
The largest flaw in this book is endless examples of accepting as true without evidence the very worst characterizations of Democrats, their administrations, and their alleged scandals, while simultaneously accepting the most positive interpretations of everything about Trump. Over and over, we are told that Obama had an apology tour (newsflash--he didn't) or that Trump has a tendency to exaggerate. Every now and then, Hanson admits he's a liar, but you never get a sense of the scale of the lies.
His main criticism of Trump is that he often Tweets outrageous things, he just can't help himself. And he accept as gospel that Trump "became rich" through his genius. Any standard biography of Trump would note that his wealth right now may be significantly lower than what he inherited from his rich dad!
He discredits books by Wolffe (correctly in part) and Woodward because...they lack citations! They don't have enough...
But--there is not one citation in this whole book. So when you are looking to find out why he thinks X or Y, you have no idea.
He gets several important facts wrong about the Mueller report. The FBI DID tell the FISA Court that the Steele dossier was a partisan product. And so one.
Hanson is remarkably ignorant of basic economics (p. 163)
And he thinks the GOP was at its best when it ran the Willie Horton ads of 1988 because that was the one time they were as vicious and amoral as the Democrats. Folks, I've spent years studying the 88 campaign and the Horton ads. They were terrible examples of racism, and that he thinks that is what Trump is bringing back to the GOP is correct--but he thinks that's GREAT.
The only reason I don't give this one star is that there are several passages that provoke thought. A few of his criticisms of liberalism generally and specific liberals ring true. And he does understand and helps the reader understand part of Trump's appeal.
BUT
This Book is soooooooooooo lazy.
Repetitive. Twice says Biden has more appeal than HRC. He falsely claims that HRC slimed Clinton's accusers (she didn't). He blames some of Trump's errors on his undisciplined staff (391) but...HE CHOSE THEM. He says McMaster is a "national icon"--uh...in what nation? He talks about the terrible abuse and threats against Trump...and ignores the rightwing racism that spewed out against Obama and his wife--over and over and over, GOP officials telling jokes about gorillas or water melons or "Obama is going to tax aspirin because its white and it works"
He even accepts, somehow, that there was a "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" the biggest bullshit cultural war phoniness in history.
Saddest thing I can say about this book is...I think this is the best book that is pro-Trump out there. And it mostly sucks.
November 22, 2019
As Mick Jagger once sang "It's the singer, not the song".
Victor Davis Hanson can write and argue. Steeped in Ancient Greece epics and history, he attempts the impossible. Anyone voicing the slightest approval of Donald Trump had better wear battle gear that can withstand the strongest weapons. Wear a MAGA hat anywhere and you are asking for it. So why even think about reading this book?
An old principle that has served me well is to read those you disagree with. Listen to their arguments. It may bolster your own. It is unlikely the book will change anyone's vote; however, it lays out some interesting arguments and unmasks some hypocrisies and contradictions on the left. As the old Gerry Rafferty song goes "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right". The swamp runs on both sides of the land.
Naysayers might find this book very irritating. Hanson wears his conservatism unapologetically and asks some tough questions. Ultimately, the left has a few things to answer for and has committed some errors, but it hard to move from this point to an endorsement.
Defenders may find a new voice.
But the ramparts are divided, democracy has become dyfunctional and 2020 could become an Armageddon. Safe out here in Singapore.
Victor Davis Hanson can write and argue. Steeped in Ancient Greece epics and history, he attempts the impossible. Anyone voicing the slightest approval of Donald Trump had better wear battle gear that can withstand the strongest weapons. Wear a MAGA hat anywhere and you are asking for it. So why even think about reading this book?
An old principle that has served me well is to read those you disagree with. Listen to their arguments. It may bolster your own. It is unlikely the book will change anyone's vote; however, it lays out some interesting arguments and unmasks some hypocrisies and contradictions on the left. As the old Gerry Rafferty song goes "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right". The swamp runs on both sides of the land.
Naysayers might find this book very irritating. Hanson wears his conservatism unapologetically and asks some tough questions. Ultimately, the left has a few things to answer for and has committed some errors, but it hard to move from this point to an endorsement.
Defenders may find a new voice.
But the ramparts are divided, democracy has become dyfunctional and 2020 could become an Armageddon. Safe out here in Singapore.
October 10, 2019
Hanson is a skilled writer and worked really hard to spin Trump in a positive light. This book at best is a post hoc justification for conservative guilt felt over Trump’s chaotic tenure. I was hoping to be a little more convinced that Trump was a good idea. The best the author offered was that he at least wasn’t as bad as Obama was or as bad as Hilary would have been. He often blames the left for their decisions and by in large glosses over Trump’s faults as just necessary means to an end. Hanson’s prose grew tiring as he’d point out the left’s hypocrisy and then commit the same errors. For example, in Hilary’s “What Happened”, the author cites how she blames everyone but herself, listing a dozen plus reasons, showing how she just can’t say she was wrong. Then the author essentially just blames the left, media, socialism, Obama, etc for their influence on Trump’s rise and not much wrong with the right. Republicans and Democrats could have done much better than Trump or Hilary.
January 3, 2023
It is hard to believe this guy is a professor. My college professors would have laughed at me if I had turned this in as an assignment.
He seems like a fan boy for Trump. Even though he talks about Trump's foibles he turns them into a positive. It seems like most of the book is his impressions of the situation. It doesn't feel like a well researched book. It is mostly just his take on things. I gave him 2 stars when I started this review when I was at the beginning of the book because he talks about Trump's negatives and positives & he had some interesting and valid views. But as I read more, there is so much misinformation that I changed it to 1 star.
Davis claims Trump is less vindictive than adaptable. He would put a hold on a grudge if working with the person was deemed useful. (Nevertheless, Trump definitely holds grudges for a long time.)
An interesting point was that after 14 years of The Apprentice, the % of people who were for Trump when he first started running for President was the very close to the same % of people who watched the final episode of The Apprentice. Davis says people wanted a decider who would fire dead wood. (Granted he fired people on TV but in the presidency he is scared to fire people in person, he does it by tweet or has someone else do it.)
He says Obama increased the national debt - true. But he also says Obama is the first president to have GDP growth under 3% - not true. And even before the pandemic, growth was as bad or worse under Trump.
He says Obama went crazy with executive orders. The only problem is that Clinton and George W. Bush had more. And Trump had 50% more than Obama did in his first 4 years. In fact he Trump's 220 in 4 years is 80% of Obama's 276 in 8 years.
He talks about how the Republicans ran gentlemanly Presidential campaigns after Lee Atwater's time. I think most historians would laugh. He says the Republican candidates were old wealthy white men who were much more polite in their campaigns than the Democrats. He felt that Trump was the first one since Atwater who was a ruthless campaigner.
Then he talks about the hostile press. He seems to forget about Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and many other press outlets.
It seems that anything related to Democrats is Socialist which is ridiculous. (Side note, Southerners started making the Socialist claim in the 1860s when blacks were given the vote before Jim Crow kept them from voting) Then he claims that Obama and the Democrats want open borders. He says this over and over and over. There are some Democrats that may want this but they are a small minority. The crazy thing is that Obama deported far more people than Trump did in the same time period. In fact, Obama deported the most people on an annual basis of any President in history by a wide margin. Did the author do any fact checking?
Then Hanson talks about radical environmentalism. I can't remember the context but I haven't noticed any president or major political leader espousing radical environmentalism. Especially at the time this book was written.
When he talks about Democrats and their policies he cherry picks the most outlandish instead of the mainstream. It would be easy to do that the other way for Republicans as well. The book does not present a very balance viewpoint.
In talking about why Trump won the election and why Republicans did really well in local elections he claims it is because Democrats wanted radical, socialist policies that turned people off. And that Trump was talking about how global trade was causing Americans to lose their jobs and the Democrats weren't. That the wealthy were getting all the benefit. He has a point that the Democrats did a lousy job of messaging. But he ignores several things. First, many of Trump's policies have hurt the people that Trump said he would help. And that his policies turbocharged money moving toward the wealthiest. So he did the opposite of what he promised. Davis also ignores James Comey reopening the Hillary email issue 2 weeks before the election against department policy and the extensive Russian interference in the election that helped Trump. (Not collusion. The Republican Senate put out an extensive report about how Russia interfered in the election. Two different things.) On the local level, he completely ignored the extreme gerrymandering that helped the Republicans. (Yes, I know Democratic states do it too, but from my understanding without doing the research, it is more pronounced in Republican controlled states, but I could be wrong.)
Then Davis claimed that Obamacare was nationalized medicine. Is he just spouting right wing talking points? He supposedly is a professor and respected historian. How did he gain that reputation?
At one point he said England and France were easy on Germany after WW1 which is what led to WW2. Everything I have read says the exact opposite. That England and France were harsh in their settlement terms. It was President Wilson of the US who wanted to go easier on them be he was very sick at the time and had little sway.
Over and over he talks about the subtle strategies that Trump used. From what I have read, Trump just went with his gut based on what he was hearing on the news. He had a knack for reading the pulse of what was going on. But he had no strategy or plan.
He then claims that Democrats appoint liberals to the Supreme Court and the Republicans appoint liberals or centrists but not conservatives. Exactly what would you call Scalia, Alito and Thomas?
I was amazed when he said that the poor were less careful and responsible than the middle class. Based on what information? He didn't say.
According to him, a free capital market using supply and demand makes everyone better off compared to a command or structured economy. That is a false equivalence. Most people want a capitalist economy but with appropriate controls so we don't go back to choking on car fumes, having rivers catch on fire because of the pollution and safe workplaces.
He went on a rant about the deep state for the good part of a chapter. About how bureaucrats are more interested in themselves than doing what is best for the country. Included in this was a complaint about the person, Anonymous, who wrote the article in the Times about how administration officials were trying to keep Trump from doing crazy things. Davis said the author didn't give any specifics but I just read the article and he did. Davis also said, if Trump is so bad, how has he done so much good? (Remember, Anonymous is in the administration, so he and others in the administration are not flaming liberals and not bureaucrats but appointed positions who would have been put in place by Trump and would be conservative.) Anonymous said the administration had done the following good things: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But he also said it was despite Trump instead of because of him.
Davis next went on a diatribe about Lois Lerner and the IRS singling out conservative non-profits. In fact the IRS looked at progressive non-profits as well. Does he do any fact checking or just spout conservative talking points like Carlson and Hannity do? See this article from a source that is rated Least Biased: https://theconversation.com/the-real-... He also talked about Eric Holder and how the Justice Dept handled a subpoena for Fox News' James Rosen. In a Fox article it said Holder said that that was his biggest regret in terms of how they handled it. But Davis doesn't mention that.
He said the deep state embraces multiculturalism, feminism and identity politics diversity. (I googled the latter and I couldn't find the term. I did find identity politics and diversity separately.) And Trump was against these things, which Davis felt was a good thing. Is this guy a luddite? What happened to America being a melting pot? We have been multicultural from the beginning. Is he also against women?
Davis says Trump pointed out that globalization helped the wealthy and hurt workers. True but he failed to point out that Trump said one thing and did another. His policies helped the wealthy and hurt workers. See https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-a...
Davis also says that Obama claimed radical Islam had no connection with terrorism. The only problem is, Obama refused to use the term radical Islam. His claim was that the people defined as radical Islamists were terrorists and their beliefs and actions had little to do with the Islamic religion. If you read what Davis says and then what Obama actually said, Davis comes out looking dumb. He also has issues with John Brennan talking about jihad and what it originally meant in Islam. I think Davis probably did have a good point about comments made about the Islamic Brotherhood.
He said Trump felt the government/deep state was too big and therefore didn't fill a lot of positions in government instead of appointing people to them. (It seems that government equates with deep state) He also hired outsiders with no experience in government and relied on family. Granted, the government can probably be trimmed but nepotism isn't a solution, especially when they aren't competent. Same goes for the outsiders who lacked experience. If they were competent, fine but many seemed to be appointed because of their ideology and not because of skills or experience they had. That is not a way to run a government or a company.
When Melania disappeared for a time because of surgery he said David Frum speculated it was because Trump had beat her up. From what I found, Frum mentioned it as a mind game of whether Trump could get the Secret Service to cover something like that up, not that he was saying Trump did it. But I could only find one article and it wasn't clear. Probably poor choice on Frum's part.
He claimed the Secret Service, FBI, CIA were conservative at one point but no longer. Mentioned Eisenhower warning of military industrial complex but not clear why that was relevant. He didn't give any data to say they were no longer conservative. In a quick look, I couldn't find one way or the other but my impression is that they tend to be conservative but work hard to be neutral and follow the law.
He also said Obama weaponized the IRS. But I don't think he specified. Probably referring to the non-profit issue above. See article showing this was false. But he failed to mention how Trump weaponized the IRS by pushing for audits of people he didn't like.
More fringe stuff about FISA courts and the Steele dossier. Not going to get into that. Then claiming the FBI put informants into the Trump campaign. From my reading, the FBI used an informant to protect Trump and make sure people in his organization weren't in contact with Russia. See https://www.businessinsider.com/heres...
Then stuff about Samantha Powers unmasking US citizens. The only balanced article I could find (plenty of stuff hyperventilating about it on the right) said that unmasking just made the identity aware to her, not the public. It also said that the intelligence community only granted it if it was needed for the person to do their job.
Davis then said that Comey, Brennan and others were projecting. i.e accusing others of things they were guilty of. That is funny because Trump is infamous for that and Davis made no mention of it.
He mentions inspector general investigations of Brennan, Comey, and Rice. **Check to see if he footnotes this.
Then Davis brings up Benghazi. But nothing new. Republicans spent 4 years or more investigating and found nothing and admitted they did it to change public perception of Clinton. So why bring it up here?
Rhodes pushed the Iran deal. Davis said Rhodes misled people about it. Trump killed it. Davis seemed to like that. But most analysts feel killing the deal was a mistake and we are worse off now.
Davis said Jonathan Gruber had a big hand in Obamacare and the US public was hoodwinked. You could keep your doctor, prices would be lower and you could keep your plan. But, that was not true for everyone, just a relative few and it ignores the positives. There are negatives, but Davis did not present a balanced view.
He then talks about how liberal the social media platforms are, Google, Facebook etc. He mentions about Google shutting down Prager University videos. But that is not true. Google put a restriction on 10% of their videos but that means that 98% of people can still see the 10% with the restriction. So Davis is blowing this up way out of proportion.
Then he says Google etc. are all against Trump. If that is true, why did Facebook offer to help both Clinton and Trump campaigns with advertising strategy. Only Trump's campaign accepted the offer and that potentially made a big difference. He then says they they promote liberal values through daily internet use. He must not understand how the algorithms work. It shows people what they have expressed an interest. It shows conservative stuff to conservatives and liberal stuff to liberals. The companies are concerned about keeping eyes glued to the screen and making money.
Then Davis complains about Obama adminstration people going to big companies and TV channels after they left government. Dumb complaint since it happens with Republicans as well. If he wants to use that as a deep state example fine, but both parties do it.
A lot of politicians talk about American decline and that they can fix it. But he said that Trump, rather than blaming Americans, blamed foreigners. That was more appealing. I agree. Trump appealed to lower and middle classes about unfairness. He took a left wing idea and made it right wing by saying capitalism was the solution.
He points out people are better off now than at any time in history. But Trump said US is in decline, our spirit was bad. He wanted to fix by building a border wall, bringing back ossified industries, sparking a manufacturing renaissance, finding more oil and gas, rebuilding airports, bridges and roads as competently as he built his skating rink in Central Park. He felt jobs and economic growth would fix things. Trump pushed infrastructure. $1 trillion investment would get our economy going. Buy America and hire America. ---But Davis doesn't mention Trump hiring illegal aliens at his properties or how his Infrastructure week became a joke because it never happened. Maybe a good idea in general but still born because of incompetence.
He indicated that Trump thought of the economy was a zero sum proposition. That there had to be winners and losers instead of finding ways to make it better for everyone. He indicated that is why Trump wanted to compete with our allies as well as competitors. Steve Bannon and Steve Miller came into the campaign and helped flesh out the ideas into a coherent whole.
In some cases Davis seems to infer or read things into what Trump does. Sometimes he seems to be overlaying his desires onto Trump. In other cases what he is saying seems more sophisticated and thoughtful than anything I have heard from Trump. Once again he seems to be assuming things. Also, a lot of the book seems to be impressions and thoughts and not facts.
He then says the Hate America crowd has done damage to the US. Who is this hate America crowd? Is it the people who are trying to right injustices and pointing out things wrong with the US to make it better? Who knows, he never clarifies.
Davis talks about increasing racial tension and stagnant economic growth at home. That is kind of odd because racial tension increased significantly after Trump became president. And Obama had one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in US history. That growth under Obama continued under Trump and became the longest in history as Trump got the benefit of an economy that was already growing nicely.
He claims Mexican illegal aliens are voting. But no proof. There are a few cases here and there of this and other voter fraud but it is minimal and has no effect on outcomes. He then seems to thin the earlier wave of Italian WOP immigrants (without papers, ie illegal aliens) were a good thing. Why?
He also says they are getting social services. But, they don't qualify so anoher bogus assertion. (Probably a few cheat the system, but it is not common)
Cesar Chavez set up vigilantes along border to prevent illegal immigrants because he felt they were hurting farm worker unions and wages. Interesting point I didn't know. He then went on to say that the Democrats had moved from closed to open border policies. Where is the proof? Davis even said Obama said 22 times he couldn't open the borders. He also deported over 50% more people than Trump over comparable time.
He says Trump want to reinstate melting pot immigration from places like Nigeria. Really? He said he wanted immigrants from Norway and Sweden and called the others shithole countries. He gives quotes from Obama and Hillary against illegal immigration but he still goes on about open borders.
He seems to think Trump's campaign and presidency were carefully thought out and clever. I differ. More spaghetti at wall and see what sticks.
Sanders or other Democrats could have beaten Trump. Clinton matched perfectly for Trump to win. Good point.
He talks about Trump draining the swamp. But most of his cabinet was under investigation for improper behavior along with many other people associated with him. Seems swampy to me.
He made fun of Clinton for complaining about a right wing conspiracy and all the negative press. Yet feels the media were out to get Trump. He talks about Clinton and Uranium One. Bogus issue.
Trump a sinner so not much expected, low bar. Clinton a "saint" so missteps seemed bigger. Bill Clinton's affairs canceled Trumps. Both good points.
He beats to death Hillary being a poor speaker, that her campaign f'ed up. He says Hillary a poor loser, still complaining 2 years later about election. Not gracious like prior candidates. FUNNY. Her complaints are nothing compared to what Trump has done.
He dismisses Bob Woodward's book because of unnamed sources. That means he dismisses a lot of reporting. Usually reporters won't include if they can't get verification from 2 or more people. Plus there is Woodward's track record and reputation. Poor choice of someone to denigrate.
Then a rant about Fake News.
I have run out of room and haven't gotten to the end of the book. There are further issues with the book but you get the idea. He makes a few good points but generally the book seems poorly written, poorly researched and extremely biased.
He seems like a fan boy for Trump. Even though he talks about Trump's foibles he turns them into a positive. It seems like most of the book is his impressions of the situation. It doesn't feel like a well researched book. It is mostly just his take on things. I gave him 2 stars when I started this review when I was at the beginning of the book because he talks about Trump's negatives and positives & he had some interesting and valid views. But as I read more, there is so much misinformation that I changed it to 1 star.
Davis claims Trump is less vindictive than adaptable. He would put a hold on a grudge if working with the person was deemed useful. (Nevertheless, Trump definitely holds grudges for a long time.)
An interesting point was that after 14 years of The Apprentice, the % of people who were for Trump when he first started running for President was the very close to the same % of people who watched the final episode of The Apprentice. Davis says people wanted a decider who would fire dead wood. (Granted he fired people on TV but in the presidency he is scared to fire people in person, he does it by tweet or has someone else do it.)
He says Obama increased the national debt - true. But he also says Obama is the first president to have GDP growth under 3% - not true. And even before the pandemic, growth was as bad or worse under Trump.
He says Obama went crazy with executive orders. The only problem is that Clinton and George W. Bush had more. And Trump had 50% more than Obama did in his first 4 years. In fact he Trump's 220 in 4 years is 80% of Obama's 276 in 8 years.
He talks about how the Republicans ran gentlemanly Presidential campaigns after Lee Atwater's time. I think most historians would laugh. He says the Republican candidates were old wealthy white men who were much more polite in their campaigns than the Democrats. He felt that Trump was the first one since Atwater who was a ruthless campaigner.
Then he talks about the hostile press. He seems to forget about Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and many other press outlets.
It seems that anything related to Democrats is Socialist which is ridiculous. (Side note, Southerners started making the Socialist claim in the 1860s when blacks were given the vote before Jim Crow kept them from voting) Then he claims that Obama and the Democrats want open borders. He says this over and over and over. There are some Democrats that may want this but they are a small minority. The crazy thing is that Obama deported far more people than Trump did in the same time period. In fact, Obama deported the most people on an annual basis of any President in history by a wide margin. Did the author do any fact checking?
Then Hanson talks about radical environmentalism. I can't remember the context but I haven't noticed any president or major political leader espousing radical environmentalism. Especially at the time this book was written.
When he talks about Democrats and their policies he cherry picks the most outlandish instead of the mainstream. It would be easy to do that the other way for Republicans as well. The book does not present a very balance viewpoint.
In talking about why Trump won the election and why Republicans did really well in local elections he claims it is because Democrats wanted radical, socialist policies that turned people off. And that Trump was talking about how global trade was causing Americans to lose their jobs and the Democrats weren't. That the wealthy were getting all the benefit. He has a point that the Democrats did a lousy job of messaging. But he ignores several things. First, many of Trump's policies have hurt the people that Trump said he would help. And that his policies turbocharged money moving toward the wealthiest. So he did the opposite of what he promised. Davis also ignores James Comey reopening the Hillary email issue 2 weeks before the election against department policy and the extensive Russian interference in the election that helped Trump. (Not collusion. The Republican Senate put out an extensive report about how Russia interfered in the election. Two different things.) On the local level, he completely ignored the extreme gerrymandering that helped the Republicans. (Yes, I know Democratic states do it too, but from my understanding without doing the research, it is more pronounced in Republican controlled states, but I could be wrong.)
Then Davis claimed that Obamacare was nationalized medicine. Is he just spouting right wing talking points? He supposedly is a professor and respected historian. How did he gain that reputation?
At one point he said England and France were easy on Germany after WW1 which is what led to WW2. Everything I have read says the exact opposite. That England and France were harsh in their settlement terms. It was President Wilson of the US who wanted to go easier on them be he was very sick at the time and had little sway.
Over and over he talks about the subtle strategies that Trump used. From what I have read, Trump just went with his gut based on what he was hearing on the news. He had a knack for reading the pulse of what was going on. But he had no strategy or plan.
He then claims that Democrats appoint liberals to the Supreme Court and the Republicans appoint liberals or centrists but not conservatives. Exactly what would you call Scalia, Alito and Thomas?
I was amazed when he said that the poor were less careful and responsible than the middle class. Based on what information? He didn't say.
According to him, a free capital market using supply and demand makes everyone better off compared to a command or structured economy. That is a false equivalence. Most people want a capitalist economy but with appropriate controls so we don't go back to choking on car fumes, having rivers catch on fire because of the pollution and safe workplaces.
He went on a rant about the deep state for the good part of a chapter. About how bureaucrats are more interested in themselves than doing what is best for the country. Included in this was a complaint about the person, Anonymous, who wrote the article in the Times about how administration officials were trying to keep Trump from doing crazy things. Davis said the author didn't give any specifics but I just read the article and he did. Davis also said, if Trump is so bad, how has he done so much good? (Remember, Anonymous is in the administration, so he and others in the administration are not flaming liberals and not bureaucrats but appointed positions who would have been put in place by Trump and would be conservative.) Anonymous said the administration had done the following good things: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But he also said it was despite Trump instead of because of him.
Davis next went on a diatribe about Lois Lerner and the IRS singling out conservative non-profits. In fact the IRS looked at progressive non-profits as well. Does he do any fact checking or just spout conservative talking points like Carlson and Hannity do? See this article from a source that is rated Least Biased: https://theconversation.com/the-real-... He also talked about Eric Holder and how the Justice Dept handled a subpoena for Fox News' James Rosen. In a Fox article it said Holder said that that was his biggest regret in terms of how they handled it. But Davis doesn't mention that.
He said the deep state embraces multiculturalism, feminism and identity politics diversity. (I googled the latter and I couldn't find the term. I did find identity politics and diversity separately.) And Trump was against these things, which Davis felt was a good thing. Is this guy a luddite? What happened to America being a melting pot? We have been multicultural from the beginning. Is he also against women?
Davis says Trump pointed out that globalization helped the wealthy and hurt workers. True but he failed to point out that Trump said one thing and did another. His policies helped the wealthy and hurt workers. See https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-a...
Davis also says that Obama claimed radical Islam had no connection with terrorism. The only problem is, Obama refused to use the term radical Islam. His claim was that the people defined as radical Islamists were terrorists and their beliefs and actions had little to do with the Islamic religion. If you read what Davis says and then what Obama actually said, Davis comes out looking dumb. He also has issues with John Brennan talking about jihad and what it originally meant in Islam. I think Davis probably did have a good point about comments made about the Islamic Brotherhood.
He said Trump felt the government/deep state was too big and therefore didn't fill a lot of positions in government instead of appointing people to them. (It seems that government equates with deep state) He also hired outsiders with no experience in government and relied on family. Granted, the government can probably be trimmed but nepotism isn't a solution, especially when they aren't competent. Same goes for the outsiders who lacked experience. If they were competent, fine but many seemed to be appointed because of their ideology and not because of skills or experience they had. That is not a way to run a government or a company.
When Melania disappeared for a time because of surgery he said David Frum speculated it was because Trump had beat her up. From what I found, Frum mentioned it as a mind game of whether Trump could get the Secret Service to cover something like that up, not that he was saying Trump did it. But I could only find one article and it wasn't clear. Probably poor choice on Frum's part.
He claimed the Secret Service, FBI, CIA were conservative at one point but no longer. Mentioned Eisenhower warning of military industrial complex but not clear why that was relevant. He didn't give any data to say they were no longer conservative. In a quick look, I couldn't find one way or the other but my impression is that they tend to be conservative but work hard to be neutral and follow the law.
He also said Obama weaponized the IRS. But I don't think he specified. Probably referring to the non-profit issue above. See article showing this was false. But he failed to mention how Trump weaponized the IRS by pushing for audits of people he didn't like.
More fringe stuff about FISA courts and the Steele dossier. Not going to get into that. Then claiming the FBI put informants into the Trump campaign. From my reading, the FBI used an informant to protect Trump and make sure people in his organization weren't in contact with Russia. See https://www.businessinsider.com/heres...
Then stuff about Samantha Powers unmasking US citizens. The only balanced article I could find (plenty of stuff hyperventilating about it on the right) said that unmasking just made the identity aware to her, not the public. It also said that the intelligence community only granted it if it was needed for the person to do their job.
Davis then said that Comey, Brennan and others were projecting. i.e accusing others of things they were guilty of. That is funny because Trump is infamous for that and Davis made no mention of it.
He mentions inspector general investigations of Brennan, Comey, and Rice. **Check to see if he footnotes this.
Then Davis brings up Benghazi. But nothing new. Republicans spent 4 years or more investigating and found nothing and admitted they did it to change public perception of Clinton. So why bring it up here?
Rhodes pushed the Iran deal. Davis said Rhodes misled people about it. Trump killed it. Davis seemed to like that. But most analysts feel killing the deal was a mistake and we are worse off now.
Davis said Jonathan Gruber had a big hand in Obamacare and the US public was hoodwinked. You could keep your doctor, prices would be lower and you could keep your plan. But, that was not true for everyone, just a relative few and it ignores the positives. There are negatives, but Davis did not present a balanced view.
He then talks about how liberal the social media platforms are, Google, Facebook etc. He mentions about Google shutting down Prager University videos. But that is not true. Google put a restriction on 10% of their videos but that means that 98% of people can still see the 10% with the restriction. So Davis is blowing this up way out of proportion.
Then he says Google etc. are all against Trump. If that is true, why did Facebook offer to help both Clinton and Trump campaigns with advertising strategy. Only Trump's campaign accepted the offer and that potentially made a big difference. He then says they they promote liberal values through daily internet use. He must not understand how the algorithms work. It shows people what they have expressed an interest. It shows conservative stuff to conservatives and liberal stuff to liberals. The companies are concerned about keeping eyes glued to the screen and making money.
Then Davis complains about Obama adminstration people going to big companies and TV channels after they left government. Dumb complaint since it happens with Republicans as well. If he wants to use that as a deep state example fine, but both parties do it.
A lot of politicians talk about American decline and that they can fix it. But he said that Trump, rather than blaming Americans, blamed foreigners. That was more appealing. I agree. Trump appealed to lower and middle classes about unfairness. He took a left wing idea and made it right wing by saying capitalism was the solution.
He points out people are better off now than at any time in history. But Trump said US is in decline, our spirit was bad. He wanted to fix by building a border wall, bringing back ossified industries, sparking a manufacturing renaissance, finding more oil and gas, rebuilding airports, bridges and roads as competently as he built his skating rink in Central Park. He felt jobs and economic growth would fix things. Trump pushed infrastructure. $1 trillion investment would get our economy going. Buy America and hire America. ---But Davis doesn't mention Trump hiring illegal aliens at his properties or how his Infrastructure week became a joke because it never happened. Maybe a good idea in general but still born because of incompetence.
He indicated that Trump thought of the economy was a zero sum proposition. That there had to be winners and losers instead of finding ways to make it better for everyone. He indicated that is why Trump wanted to compete with our allies as well as competitors. Steve Bannon and Steve Miller came into the campaign and helped flesh out the ideas into a coherent whole.
In some cases Davis seems to infer or read things into what Trump does. Sometimes he seems to be overlaying his desires onto Trump. In other cases what he is saying seems more sophisticated and thoughtful than anything I have heard from Trump. Once again he seems to be assuming things. Also, a lot of the book seems to be impressions and thoughts and not facts.
He then says the Hate America crowd has done damage to the US. Who is this hate America crowd? Is it the people who are trying to right injustices and pointing out things wrong with the US to make it better? Who knows, he never clarifies.
Davis talks about increasing racial tension and stagnant economic growth at home. That is kind of odd because racial tension increased significantly after Trump became president. And Obama had one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in US history. That growth under Obama continued under Trump and became the longest in history as Trump got the benefit of an economy that was already growing nicely.
He claims Mexican illegal aliens are voting. But no proof. There are a few cases here and there of this and other voter fraud but it is minimal and has no effect on outcomes. He then seems to thin the earlier wave of Italian WOP immigrants (without papers, ie illegal aliens) were a good thing. Why?
He also says they are getting social services. But, they don't qualify so anoher bogus assertion. (Probably a few cheat the system, but it is not common)
Cesar Chavez set up vigilantes along border to prevent illegal immigrants because he felt they were hurting farm worker unions and wages. Interesting point I didn't know. He then went on to say that the Democrats had moved from closed to open border policies. Where is the proof? Davis even said Obama said 22 times he couldn't open the borders. He also deported over 50% more people than Trump over comparable time.
He says Trump want to reinstate melting pot immigration from places like Nigeria. Really? He said he wanted immigrants from Norway and Sweden and called the others shithole countries. He gives quotes from Obama and Hillary against illegal immigration but he still goes on about open borders.
He seems to think Trump's campaign and presidency were carefully thought out and clever. I differ. More spaghetti at wall and see what sticks.
Sanders or other Democrats could have beaten Trump. Clinton matched perfectly for Trump to win. Good point.
He talks about Trump draining the swamp. But most of his cabinet was under investigation for improper behavior along with many other people associated with him. Seems swampy to me.
He made fun of Clinton for complaining about a right wing conspiracy and all the negative press. Yet feels the media were out to get Trump. He talks about Clinton and Uranium One. Bogus issue.
Trump a sinner so not much expected, low bar. Clinton a "saint" so missteps seemed bigger. Bill Clinton's affairs canceled Trumps. Both good points.
He beats to death Hillary being a poor speaker, that her campaign f'ed up. He says Hillary a poor loser, still complaining 2 years later about election. Not gracious like prior candidates. FUNNY. Her complaints are nothing compared to what Trump has done.
He dismisses Bob Woodward's book because of unnamed sources. That means he dismisses a lot of reporting. Usually reporters won't include if they can't get verification from 2 or more people. Plus there is Woodward's track record and reputation. Poor choice of someone to denigrate.
Then a rant about Fake News.
I have run out of room and haven't gotten to the end of the book. There are further issues with the book but you get the idea. He makes a few good points but generally the book seems poorly written, poorly researched and extremely biased.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews